A Question for all the Low Carb Haters
Replies
-
Annnnnnnd this is why people hate low carbersEating starches isn't good for anyone0 -
If a calorie is a calorie, why the hell are you doing low carb?
Low carbing drains your glycogen stores rapidly and that's why you see a large initial drop in weight; it comes back as soon as you eat carbs because they refill.
Personally I wouldn't be comfortable exercising on depleted glycogen stores, because that energy has to come from somewhere, but hey - whatever floats your boat.
I do it because I am not constantly hungry or fighting cravings, and I FEEL so much better.0 -
I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
It is not just math it is science as well. The body is a self adaptable machine and stops producing the hormones needed to break down carbs when you go too low too long this is the same for fat and protein too. And if you go too low on calories you will lose less weight then with slightly more. The body needs fuel and all types of food as fuel.0 -
deleted0
-
I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
It is not just math it is science as well. The body is a self adaptable machine and stops producing the hormones needed to break down carbs when you go too low too long this is the same for fat and protein too. And if you go too low on calories you will lose less weight then with slightly more. The body needs fuel and all types of food as fuel.
So are you saying by going low carb I can turn myself into a T1 diabetic? That my body won't produce insulin?0 -
"normal" eating is what got me fat in the first place. I don't know if adding back carbs is where you got that notion from but adding back carbs and ditching your new way of life are not synonymous. I just mean more fruits and veggies, maybe some nut flours. I won't eat grains anyways because my neurologist suggested I not after a massive brain injury in October.
I think we're more or less in agreement here, what I was getting at was this posting "It's really simple. Once you go back to normal eating, you tend to eat everything; carbs, fat, protein. Let's say for example a cheeseburger... Your body uses carbs first as a fuel source. Fat will automatically be stored in the reserves because it doesn't need it at that time." Normal eating for me was way excessive carbs, I have altered my lifestyle to eat a more balanced diet and I intend for this to become 'normal eating'. I don't think the carbs are wrong in a balanced diet and I think it is important to keep within maintenance calorie limits when you reach your target.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's not true u don't gain all the weight back if u have balance diet and some exercise
I did it before lost 40lb and never gain it back until 8 years later after I met my bf and started eating like a pig with him and not working out. And when u finish a low carb diet u need to introduce you carb slowly until u find ur perfect balance0 -
That's an interesting term: "low carb hater." Personally, I find its best to get healthy in a way that's enjoyable to me. I would hate to try to cut my carbs. It would be harder to include my daily sugar dose if I did that. I also prefer to think in positive terms instead of negative ones. So I consider myself a carb-lover, rather than a low-carb hater. My goal is a minimum of 0.7g of protein per pound of LBM and 0.35g fats per pound of body weight. Then the rest of my calories can fall where they may. This makes my macros 45/20/35. It works well for me and allows me to eat the foods that I enjoy while still shedding the excess fat from my body.0
-
Spot on. Find a new "normal".I don't understand this "Once you go back to normal eating.............". If you have that attitude of course you are much more likely to fail eventually.0 -
I know this topic sparks debate, so I'm glad it's been civil but can anyone actually answer my original question?
Assuming I keep my calories at 1600/day IF (this is hypothetical) I switched from eating high fat/mod protein/low carb to low fat/mod protein/high carb wouldn't I still maintain?0 -
I'm not a hater - I did low-carb (Atkins) for a while years ago, and it worked at the time. I did gain loads of weight when I stopped (after being advised to due to health problems I had at the time). I know that for me, low-carb seemed to work by limiting eating opportunities whilst decreasing my appetite (I don't know if it works this way for everybody). I found that I was eating at a deficit whilst on low-carb, without trying to. Naively, I'd hoped that if I just went back to normal eating, I'd maintain, rather than gain. I'm not sure why that didn't happen, but it might not have been related to the low-carb diet in particular. I'm not quite sure why I gained so much, but that does sometimes seem to happen to people who have been dieting (I gained much more than I'd lost in the first place!).
Edit to add: obviously, I didn't stay within my caloric goal, because I didn't have one! I sometimes tracked calories while on Atkins out of curiosity, but I didn't deliberately eat less, I just seemed to be less hungry. When I started eating "normally" I didn't count calories either, but I presume I was eating more than on Atkins. So for me, it suppressed appetite - when I stopped my appetite increased.
I can appreciate that you weren't counting calories on your LC plan but do you think you would have still gained if you had added back carbs but remained within your caloric goals? My cravings also disappeared when beginning my LC journey, which makes it VERY easy to remain focused on my goals. I guess my question is.... will eating LC do some sort of damage to your body that makes it forget how to metabolize carbs later on? This is assuming you are always within the same amount of calories for your needs. I REALLY like the way not eating breads/starches makes me feel. But I got fat because I liked the way croissants made me feel too LOL Am I damaging my body to do it? Because I definitely don't want to do that; my ultimate goal is heath before weight loss, but the weight loss is sort of an inevitable fringe benefit right?
I know what you're asking, and I wish I knew the answer! My guess is that the calories were what mattered. I was eating about 1400 calories a day on Atkins. I presume that if I'd kept the calories at 1400, I would have continued to lose. Or if I'd started calorie-counting at my TDEE, presumably I wouldn't have put it on. I'll never know! At the time, calorie-counting felt like it would be more difficult to maintain than low-carb, and I didn't really need to lose more weight anyway.
I don't see why low-carb would have damaged my body, and I did eat healthily when I stopped. I'm just surprised that I put on weight so dramatically. Before I started Atkins, I'd been at the border of healthy and overweight on the BMI chart. After I stopped, I ended up close to morbidly obese. It is most likely that my weight gain had NOTHING to do with Atkins, but I'm just letting you know my experience! I am now slowly losing weight on a balanced diet (not low-carb) diet, so if any damage was done, it obviously wasn't enough to permanently stop weight loss.0 -
I know this topic sparks debate, so I'm glad it's been civil but can anyone actually answer my original question?
Assuming I keep my calories at 1600/day IF (this is hypothetical) I switched from eating high fat/mod protein/low carb to low fat/mod protein/high carb wouldn't I still maintain?
A couple of people did answer that question...when you re-introduce carbs, you're going to retain more water...you're also going to replenish your glycogen stores, all of which leads to scale weight gain, not fat
Most people who LC and go off of LC go back to eating the way they used to...therefore they gain fat as well. I think most people who make the comment about gaining the weight back are refering to the fact that a lot of LCers don't track calories...they don't learn how to eat within their caloric means...when they re-introduce carbs, they're re-introducing calories that weren't there...most don't eat at maintenance when they re-introduce carbs...they eat at a surplus.
I wouldn't think you would gain fat re-introducing carbs if you actually tracked calories...but most LCers don't.0 -
I'm not a hater - I did low-carb (Atkins) for a while years ago, and it worked at the time. I did gain loads of weight when I stopped (after being advised to due to health problems I had at the time). I know that for me, low-carb seemed to work by limiting eating opportunities whilst decreasing my appetite (I don't know if it works this way for everybody). I found that I was eating at a deficit whilst on low-carb, without trying to. Naively, I'd hoped that if I just went back to normal eating, I'd maintain, rather than gain. I'm not sure why that didn't happen, but it might not have been related to the low-carb diet in particular. I'm not quite sure why I gained so much, but that does sometimes seem to happen to people who have been dieting (I gained much more than I'd lost in the first place!).
Edit to add: obviously, I didn't stay within my caloric goal, because I didn't have one! I sometimes tracked calories while on Atkins out of curiosity, but I didn't deliberately eat less, I just seemed to be less hungry. When I started eating "normally" I didn't count calories either, but I presume I was eating more than on Atkins. So for me, it suppressed appetite - when I stopped my appetite increased.
I can appreciate that you weren't counting calories on your LC plan but do you think you would have still gained if you had added back carbs but remained within your caloric goals? My cravings also disappeared when beginning my LC journey, which makes it VERY easy to remain focused on my goals. I guess my question is.... will eating LC do some sort of damage to your body that makes it forget how to metabolize carbs later on? This is assuming you are always within the same amount of calories for your needs. I REALLY like the way not eating breads/starches makes me feel. But I got fat because I liked the way croissants made me feel too LOL Am I damaging my body to do it? Because I definitely don't want to do that; my ultimate goal is heath before weight loss, but the weight loss is sort of an inevitable fringe benefit right?
I know what you're asking, and I wish I knew the answer! My guess is that the calories were what mattered. I was eating about 1400 calories a day on Atkins. I presume that if I'd kept the calories at 1400, I would have continued to lose. Or if I'd started calorie-counting at my TDEE, presumably I wouldn't have put it on. I'll never know! At the time, calorie-counting felt like it would be more difficult to maintain than low-carb, and I didn't really need to lose more weight anyway.
I don't see why low-carb would have damaged my body, and I did eat healthily when I stopped. I'm just surprised that I put on weight so dramatically. Before I started Atkins, I'd been at the border of healthy and overweight on the BMI chart. After I stopped, I ended up close to morbidly obese. It is most likely that my weight gain had NOTHING to do with Atkins, but I'm just letting you know my experience! I am now slowly losing weight on a balanced diet (not low-carb) diet, so if any damage was done, it obviously wasn't enough to permanently stop weight loss.
it probably did have to do with adkins... when your body is in a prolonged state of ketosis and you suddenly re-introduce carbs in massive quantities you're going to start burning it like crazy. when it doesn't get expended through exercise or daily life, it gets stored as fat.
your huge rebound absolutely had a LOT to do with the fact that your body had been in ketosis for so long. (Adkins)0 -
I know this topic sparks debate, so I'm glad it's been civil but can anyone actually answer my original question?
Assuming I keep my calories at 1600/day IF (this is hypothetical) I switched from eating high fat/mod protein/low carb to low fat/mod protein/high carb wouldn't I still maintain?
I am an ultra low carber, so m opinion is bias toward my own thinking. :-) I believe if you up your carbs to go back to the kind of levels you were eating before your diet, yes, you will gain the weight. Atkins suggests upping your carbs little by little until you gain, then dropping them down, to what is your level. That makes sense to me. As well as being an ultra low carb eater, I also eat Primal, no wheat, grains or milk, but I plan to eat this way for the rest of my life, so I am not really concerned about gaining.0 -
it probably did have to do with adkins... when your body is in a prolonged state of ketosis and you suddenly re-introduce carbs in massive quantities you're going to start burning it like crazy. when it doesn't get expended through exercise or daily life, it gets stored as fat.
your huge rebound absolutely had a LOT to do with the fact that your body had been in ketosis for so long. (Adkins)
I don't want to do a huge quote, but re: the above ^^^ , I didn't eat massive amount of carbohydrates when I stopped Atkins. I ate quite moderately (although presumably slightly above my TDEE, without realising it). I'd also been eating a fair amount of carbs on Atkins. I don't know what the programme is like now, but back then you slowly introduced carbs to see if they caused you problems, and so I was eating quite a full range of carbs (even the occasional slice of bread!). I'm not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.0 -
I'm not a hater but I've noticed two things.
Short term carb reduction causes quick weight loss due to water retention. The reverse holds true, reintroducing carbs will increase weight. This is not a huge amount, but is quickly noticeable.
Like many restrictive diets, the dieter doesn't learn to eat appropriately. Once off the diet or once an Oops has been made, it can turn into a binge. Then the dieter blames the carbs rather than the binge/excessive eating for the weight gain.0 -
I'm not a hater - I did low-carb (Atkins) for a while years ago, and it worked at the time. I did gain loads of weight when I stopped (after being advised to due to health problems I had at the time). I know that for me, low-carb seemed to work by limiting eating opportunities whilst decreasing my appetite (I don't know if it works this way for everybody). I found that I was eating at a deficit whilst on low-carb, without trying to. Naively, I'd hoped that if I just went back to normal eating, I'd maintain, rather than gain. I'm not sure why that didn't happen, but it might not have been related to the low-carb diet in particular. I'm not quite sure why I gained so much, but that does sometimes seem to happen to people who have been dieting (I gained much more than I'd lost in the first place!).
Edit to add: obviously, I didn't stay within my caloric goal, because I didn't have one! I sometimes tracked calories while on Atkins out of curiosity, but I didn't deliberately eat less, I just seemed to be less hungry. When I started eating "normally" I didn't count calories either, but I presume I was eating more than on Atkins. So for me, it suppressed appetite - when I stopped my appetite increased.
I can appreciate that you weren't counting calories on your LC plan but do you think you would have still gained if you had added back carbs but remained within your caloric goals? My cravings also disappeared when beginning my LC journey, which makes it VERY easy to remain focused on my goals. I guess my question is.... will eating LC do some sort of damage to your body that makes it forget how to metabolize carbs later on? This is assuming you are always within the same amount of calories for your needs. I REALLY like the way not eating breads/starches makes me feel. But I got fat because I liked the way croissants made me feel too LOL Am I damaging my body to do it? Because I definitely don't want to do that; my ultimate goal is heath before weight loss, but the weight loss is sort of an inevitable fringe benefit right?
Well, here's my anecdote. I did South Beach something like 6 years ago. Lost weight quickly. Quickly regained when I ate 'normally' but without calorie counting (which was probably something like 2500-3000 cals a day, looking back - lots of restaurant meals and booze).
I lost weight again 3 years ago using calorie counting and a varied diet (but shooting for high protein); have maintained for two years. This time I sort of roughly followed 'low gi' principles, but not religiously.
I will say that satiety is easier to achieve within cal goals when I'm less carby. That for me still means a lowish gi (but not always) starch at every meal, but the focus is on the meat & leafy veg. When my meals are more carb-weighted - breakfast toast, white potatoes with lunch or a quiche or a slice of pizza, pasta for dinner - not only do I find it harder to meet my target, but I want more carbs the next day, and it kickstarts a cycle if I don't keep it in check (count, plan a protein/fat-high meal). AND, that feels harder, the longer I've eaten many high-gi foods.0 -
Well problem #1 in your argument. A calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to optimum performance/results. If you're not familiar with cell metabolism and stuff like the krebs cycle I'd recommend you to google them. If you're too lazy for that then just ask yourself this why do athletes carb up before a big event instead of eating tubs of butter? Because a calorie isn't a calorie.I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)0 -
Well problem #1 in your argument. A calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to optimum performance/results. If you're not familiar with cell metabolism and stuff like the krebs cycle I'd recommend you to google them. If you're too lazy for that then just ask yourself this why do athletes carb up before a big event instead of eating tubs of butter? Because a calorie isn't a calorie.I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
I'm not too lazy to do anything, but I won't take any advice from people who deliver it so rudely.0 -
I think you should do it and tell us the results
!
But i dont get it, peoples 'normal' eating resulted in them gaining weight so why do they want to go back to that, instead of redefining and re-evaluating their term of 'normal'.
Or when people think you revert back to 'normal' that you are going to do the same, and then eat alot more ontop of it.
A 'diet' that makes you learn to eat more healthy food, isnt necessarily a bad thing hopefully it will turn into a lifestyle rather than a short term solution to a long term problem.0 -
Is it a personal goal of yours to get offended over anything said over the internet? I simply offered you a real life example on the chance that you wouldn't want to read study after study on cell metabolism, potentially saving you hours of your own time. But if you choose to remain ignorant on the subject matter YOU asked about simply because you don't like how an answer is worded then I guarantee you that I won't lose any sleep over it.
Well problem #1 in your argument. A calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to optimum performance/results. If you're not familiar with cell metabolism and stuff like the krebs cycle I'd recommend you to google them. If you're too lazy for that then just ask yourself this why do athletes carb up before a big event instead of eating tubs of butter? Because a calorie isn't a calorie.I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
I'm not too lazy to do anything, but I won't take any advice from people who deliver it so rudely.0 -
They carb up because those carbs fill their muscles stand out. Water.
Well problem #1 in your argument. A calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to optimum performance/results. If you're not familiar with cell metabolism and stuff like the krebs cycle I'd recommend you to google them. If you're too lazy for that then just ask yourself this why do athletes carb up before a big event instead of eating tubs of butter? Because a calorie isn't a calorie.I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Glycogen.html0 -
I doubt a marathon runner cares about how much their muscles stand out.They carb up because those carbs fill their muscles stand out. Water.
To your link: I'm familiar with glycogen, here is a excerpt for your own link that would support my statement.Effects on Performance
Increased storage can double duration of exhaustive work
Low or depleted glycogen stores
limits exercise intensity
decreases time to exhaustion
increases rating of perceived exhaustion during physical activity (Nieman 1987)0 -
it probably did have to do with adkins... when your body is in a prolonged state of ketosis and you suddenly re-introduce carbs in massive quantities you're going to start burning it like crazy. when it doesn't get expended through exercise or daily life, it gets stored as fat.
your huge rebound absolutely had a LOT to do with the fact that your body had been in ketosis for so long. (Adkins)
I don't want to do a huge quote, but re: the above ^^^ , I didn't eat massive amount of carbohydrates when I stopped Atkins. I ate quite moderately (although presumably slightly above my TDEE, without realising it). I'd also been eating a fair amount of carbs on Atkins. I don't know what the programme is like now, but back then you slowly introduced carbs to see if they caused you problems, and so I was eating quite a full range of carbs (even the occasional slice of bread!). I'm not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.
fair enough. i'm prone to hyperbole too so even though i was describing an extreme case, the same principle holds true even at a smaller, more reasonable level. adkins may not have been the ONLY reason you put on the weight, but it's likely to have contributed in some part.0 -
Is it a personal goal of yours to get offended over anything said over the internet? I simply offered you a real life example on the chance that you wouldn't want to read study after study on cell metabolism, potentially saving you hours of your own time. But if you choose to remain ignorant on the subject matter YOU asked about simply because you don't like how an answer is worded then I guarantee you that I won't lose any sleep over it.
Well problem #1 in your argument. A calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to optimum performance/results. If you're not familiar with cell metabolism and stuff like the krebs cycle I'd recommend you to google them. If you're too lazy for that then just ask yourself this why do athletes carb up before a big event instead of eating tubs of butter? Because a calorie isn't a calorie.I keep reading how difficult it is to maintain a low carb lifestyle in the long run, and that all the weight people doing LC work to lose will just come back when they re-introduce carbs. Why? If a calorie is a calorie, and you stay within your caloric goal, why on earth would the weight come back? Just curious if there is some sort of metabolic damage you can do to your body by being LC that won't allow it to metabolize them properly if you did add them back in (always assuming you're eating to maintain or at a deficit)
I'm not too lazy to do anything, but I won't take any advice from people who deliver it so rudely.
you did kind of present it in a *kitten*-y way... to be fair...0 -
I think you should do it and tell us the results!
But i dont get it, peoples 'normal' eating resulted in them gaining weight so why do they want to go back to that, instead of redefining and re-evaluating their term of 'normal'.
Or when people think you revert back to 'normal' that you are going to do the same, and then eat alot more ontop of it.
A 'diet' that makes you learn to eat more healthy food, isnt necessarily a bad thing hopefully it will turn into a lifestyle rather than a short term solution to a long term problem.
Challenge Accepted. I'm going to lose my first 25lbs low carb, and then I'm going to lose the next 25 by just eating a deficit according to my TDEE. Stay tuned MFP, stay tuned!0 -
IM WITH YA 110% ON THIS ^^ Great loss btw!!I didn't do low carb because I wanted a "quick fix"...I did it because it works for me. And unlike all the haters, I didn't gain all the weight back once I started adding carbs back in. I lost 80+ lbs doing a low carb plan and kept it all off for 4+ years. I ate at my maintenance calorie range and continued to exercise and be active. In the last year, I gained 25 lbs back...not because low carb "doesn't work" but because I moved, was stressed out, at out a lot more and didn't exercise nearly as much. Since January, I've been doing low carb again and once again at my target goal.
Low carb may not be for everyone, but it works. It isn't just water weight. The weight just doesn't pile back on when you are eating carbs again. If you regain the weight (you know like 90% of the people who lose weight), it is because you are eating more than you need...not because the carbs put the weight right back on.
I often find the misinformation about low carb diets from the "haters" to be staggering.0 -
I doubt a marathon runner cares about how much their muscles stand out.They carb up because those carbs fill their muscles stand out. Water.
To your link: I'm familiar with glycogen, here is a excerpt for your own link that would support my statement.Effects on Performance
Increased storage can double duration of exhaustive work
Low or depleted glycogen stores
limits exercise intensity
decreases time to exhaustion
increases rating of perceived exhaustion during physical activity (Nieman 1987)
0 -
I eat a more balanced diet because I lose too much weight and energy on a low carb diet. Sure I get skinny quickly, but what good is it if I have no energy to do anything.I think you should do it and tell us the results!
But i dont get it, peoples 'normal' eating resulted in them gaining weight so why do they want to go back to that, instead of redefining and re-evaluating their term of 'normal'.
Or when people think you revert back to 'normal' that you are going to do the same, and then eat alot more ontop of it.
A 'diet' that makes you learn to eat more healthy food, isnt necessarily a bad thing hopefully it will turn into a lifestyle rather than a short term solution to a long term problem.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions